One might say that physicists study the symmetry of nature, while mathematicians study the nature of symmetry.

1/

@GWOMaths Observing symmetry in nature, such as noting the similarity between the symmetries of a snowflake and a hexagon, is readily comprehensible. What does it mean then to study "the nature of symmetry"?

2/
@GWOMaths Mathematicians define a "group", G, as a set of elements {a,b,c, ...} with a binary operation ⊡ and a distinguished element e (the identity of G) satisfying these specific properties:

3/
@GWOMaths For all a, b, c in G
1) Closure: a⊡b is in G.
2) Associativity: (a⊡b)⊡c = a⊡(b⊡c)
3) Identity: e⊡a = a⊡e = a.
4) Inverse: There exists an element a* such that a*⊡a = a⊡a* = e.

4/
@GWOMaths Just as functions on the integers, rationals, or reals are defined as mappings, mathematicians define a *group morphism* μ as a mapping from one group to another that preserves the group structure:

5/
@GWOMaths For groups G = [{a,b,c, ...}, ⊡, e] and H = [{α,β,γ, ...}, ⊠, ε]
then μ: G ⟼ H is a "group morphism" if for all elements of G:
μ(a⊡b) = μ(a)⊠μ(b). Note that for all a:
μ(a)⊠ε = μ(a) = μ(a⊡e) = μ(a)⊠μ(e)
and hence μ(e)=ε; Similarly it can be shown that
μ(a*) = μ(a)*.
@GWOMaths Thus the definition of such a *group morphism* preserves the group structure. When such a *morphism* is both *onto* (ie every element of H is mapped to by one or more elements of G) and *one-to-one* (only one element of G maps to each element in H) it is termed an *isomorphism*.
@GWOMaths For mathematical purposes, when there exists an *isomorphism* between two groups G = [{a,b,c, ...}, ⊡, e] and H = [{α,β,γ, ...}, ⊠, ε] then G and H are termed *isomorphic*, or *the same up to isomorphism*.
@GWOMaths Now all the finite groups can be classified in terms of various internal structures, first collecting those which are *the same up to isomorphism* and then collecting families with similar internal structure.
@GWOMaths When all the families of groups - Cyclic, Alternating, and assorted Lie Group Types - have been defined, there are remaining 26 groups that don't fit anywhere: the *sporadic groups*.
@GWOMaths Of these 26 *sporadic groups*, two stand out from the others in terms of their size:

- the *Baby Monster*, *B*, of size
2⁴¹ ⋅ 3¹³ ⋅ 5⁶ ⋅ 7² ⋅ 11 ⋅ 13 ⋅ 17 ⋅ 19 ⋅ 23 ⋅ 31 ⋅ 47; and
@GWOMaths - the *(Fischer–Griess) Monster), *M*, of size
2⁴⁶ ⋅ 3²⁰ ⋅ 5⁹ ⋅ 7⁶ ⋅ 11² ⋅ 13³ ⋅ 17 ⋅ 19 ⋅ 23 ⋅ 29 ⋅ 31 ⋅ 41 ⋅ 47 ⋅ 59 ⋅ 71.

Counting up the number of distinct primes in that last number gives us 15.
@GWOMaths Therefore today's answer is that:

The number of distinct prime factors
in the size, n, of the *Monster Group* M
is

15.
@GWOMaths @threadreaderapp unroll

More from Maths

OK, I may be guilty of a DoS attack attempt on mathematicians' brains here, so lest anyone waste too much precious brain time decoding this deliberately cryptic statement, let me do it for you. •1/15


First, as some asked, it is to be parenthesized as: “∀x.∀y.((∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (((∀t.((t∈x) ⇒ ((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y))))) ⇒ (z∈y)))) ⇒ (∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (z∈y))))” (the convention is that ‘⇒’ is right-associative: “P⇒Q⇒R” means “P⇒(Q⇒R)”), but this doesn't clarify much. •2/15

Maybe we can make it a tad less abstruse by using guarded quantifiers (“∀u∈x.(…)” stands for “∀u.((u∈x)⇒(…))”): it is then “∀x.∀y.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y)))) ⇒ (z∈y))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.(z∈y)))”. •3/15

Maybe a tad clearer again by writing “P(u)” for “u∈y” and leaving out the quantifier on y, viꝫ: “∀x.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ P(t)))) ⇒ P(z))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.P(z)))” [✯]. Now it appears as an induction principle: namely, … •4/15

… “in order to prove P(z) for all z∈x, we can assume, when proving P(z), that P(t) is already known for all t∈z∩x” (n.b.: “(∀z.(Q(z)⇒P(z)))⇒(∀z.P(z))” can be read “in order to prove P(z) for all z, we can assume Q(z) known when proving P(z)”). •5/15

You May Also Like